What is the optimal definition of misclassification in patients with very low-risk prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance? Results from a multi-institutional series

Giorgio Gandaglia, Guillaume Ploussard, Hendrik Isbarn, Nazareno Suardi, Peter J L De Visschere, Jurgen J. Futterer, Pirus Ghadjar, Christophe Massard, Piet Ost, Prasanna Sooriakumaran, Christian I. Surcel, Roderick C N van der Bergh, Francesco Montorsi, Vincenzo Ficarra, Gianluca Giannarini, Alberto Briganti, Prostate Cancer Working Group of Young Academic Urologists Working Party of European Association of Urology

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The risk of unfavorable prostate cancer in active surveillance (AS) candidates is nonnegligible. However, what represents an adverse pathologic outcome in this setting is unknown. We aimed at assessing the optimal definition of misclassification and its effect on recurrence in AS candidates treated with radical prostatectomy (RP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall, 1,710 patients eligible for AS according to Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance criteria treated with RP between 2000 and 2013 at 3 centers were evaluated. Patients were stratified according to pathology results at RP: organ-confined disease and pathologic Gleason score ≤ 6 (group 1); organ-confined disease and Gleason score 3+4 (group 2); and non-organ-confined disease, Gleason score ≥ 4+3, and nodal invasion (group 3). Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as 2 consecutive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 0.2 ng/ml. Kaplan-Meier curves assessed time to BCR. Multivariable Cox regression analyses tested the association between pathologic features and BCR. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified the predictors of adverse pathologic characteristics.

RESULTS: Overall, 926 (54.2%), 653 (33.0%), and 220 (12.9%) patients were categorized in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Median follow-up was 32.2 months. The 5-year BCR-free survival rate was 94.2%. Patients in group 3 had lower BCR-free survival rates compared with those in group 1 (79.1% vs. 97.0%, P<0.001). No differences were observed between patients included in group 1 vs. group 2 (97.0% vs. 94.7%, P = 0.1). These results were confirmed at multivariable analyses and after stratification according to margin status. Older age and PSA density ≥ 10 ng/ml/ml were associated with higher risk of unfavorable pathologic characteristics (i.e., inclusion in group 3; all P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Among patients eligible for AS treated with RP, only men with Gleason score ≥ 4+3 or non-organ-confined disease at final pathology were at increased risk of BCR. These individuals represent the real misclassified AS patients, who can be predicted based on older age and higher PSA density.

Original languageEnglish
JournalUrologic Oncology
Volume33
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 1 2015

Keywords

  • Active surveillance
  • Biochemical recurrence
  • Oncologic outcomes
  • Prostate cancer
  • Radical prostatectomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Urology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'What is the optimal definition of misclassification in patients with very low-risk prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance? Results from a multi-institutional series'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Gandaglia, G., Ploussard, G., Isbarn, H., Suardi, N., De Visschere, P. J. L., Futterer, J. J., Ghadjar, P., Massard, C., Ost, P., Sooriakumaran, P., Surcel, C. I., van der Bergh, R. C. N., Montorsi, F., Ficarra, V., Giannarini, G., Briganti, A., & Prostate Cancer Working Group of Young Academic Urologists Working Party of European Association of Urology (2015). What is the optimal definition of misclassification in patients with very low-risk prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance? Results from a multi-institutional series. Urologic Oncology, 33(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.12.011